Our current state of the union

[TangoTangoTango]

I’ll get downvoted but the people running our country should make way more. And in part that will help everyone who is making as much as a senator. Like to run the USA you make the same as a Netflix realtor? Wtf

That is absurd. Running for Congress is a vanity project for those who are largely independently wealthy. You do realize the amount that Congress works in a given year typically averages out to 2-3.5 days a week? They're getting paid significantly more per hour than any controller.

 

[32andBelow]

That is absurd. Running for Congress is a vanity project for those who are largely independently wealthy. You do realize the amount that Congress works in a given year typically averages out to 2-3.5 days a week? They're getting paid significantly more per hour than any controller.

whelp now you have a made up pay cap to deal with…president of the USA should make at least a million.

 

[PooseMaGoose]

I get the sentiment but these people are in charge of the country and paying them so little gets people who are already rich and just want influence. Then down the line it effects us and all the other Feds

Adding more monetary incentive to public office will not deter the many seeking power. It would simply create another component that sways public office towards self-serving while masquerading as altruistic on paper. Awesome quote from House of Cards' Francis Underwood:

"Money is the Mc-mansion in Sarasota that starts falling apart after 10 years. Power is the old stone building that stands for centuries. I cannot respect someone who doesn't see the difference."

 

[32andBelow]

Adding more monetary incentive to public office will not deter the many seeking power. It would simply create another component that sways public office towards self-serving while masquerading as altruistic on paper. Awesome quote from House of Cards' Francis Underwood:

"Money is the Mc-mansion in Sarasota that starts falling apart after 10 years. Power is the old stone building that stands for centuries. I cannot respect someone who doesn't see the difference."

It doesn’t change the fact that people with real jobs are limited by what our leaders make. Like it or hate is they are the leaders of the USA.

 

[PooseMaGoose]

It doesn’t change the fact that people with real jobs are limited by what our leaders make. Like it or hate is they are the leaders of the USA.

Untrue. Congress has the authority to set pay rates via the executive schedule. While there is probably a loose, indirect connection between elected leaders' compensation and the salaries of people with "real jobs," there are many positions that earn more than elected officials- physicians, dentists, SES's, cybersecurity personnel, intelligence positions... controllers... We have the legal authority to out-earn elected officials based on our own pay structure.

So no, people with "real jobs" are not limited by what our leaders make.

 

[GroundClutter]

It doesn’t change the fact that people with real jobs are limited by what our leaders make. Like it or hate is they are the leaders of the USA.

What about your Patron Saint AOC.

Wasn't she just a lowly Bartender?

 

[32andBelow]

What about your Patron Saint AOC.

Wasn't she just a lowly Bartender?

Prolly why she’s the only one with any common sense

 

[Move78]

Prolly why she’s the only one with any common sense

This mf on the good stuff

 

[Shikaka]

Prolly why she’s the only one with any common sense

 

[SquawkHijack]

I’ll get downvoted but the people running our country should make way more. And in part that will help everyone who is making as much as a senator. Like to run the USA you make the same as a Netflix realtor? Wtf.

Ever heard of lobbying? Our elected officials in DC make PLENTY….

 

[Termine]

Ever heard of lobbying? Our elected officials in DC make PLENTY….

The theory is that if you paid each elected official a crazy amount, let's say $3M a year, they would be less likely to be swayed by lobbyists. It's why you shouldn't have an volunteer legislature: the only people who can afford to be legislators are people who are already wealthy—or people who are very very susceptible to corruption. You want "being a Congressperson" to pay enough that someone can stay above water on their mortgage back home and rent an apartment in DC at the same time.

Obviously humans are greedy and some people would accept anything just for the extra money, and some people would accept anything because they like the attention the lobbyist gives them, whatever. You'd cut down on that influence significantly.

 

[KP-ATC]

The theory is that if you paid each elected official a crazy amount, let's say $3M a year, they would be less likely to be swayed by lobbyists. It's why you shouldn't have an volunteer legislature: the only people who can afford to be legislators are people who are already wealthy—or people who are very very susceptible to corruption. You want "being a Congressperson" to pay enough that someone can stay above water on their mortgage back home and rent an apartment in DC at the same time.

Obviously humans are greedy and some people would accept anything just for the extra money, and some people would accept anything because they like the attention the lobbyist gives them, whatever. You'd cut down on that influence significantly.

I disagree. We have a volunteer legislature in NH and it works quite well. If you like freedom. And low taxes.

 

[SquawkHijack]

The theory is that if you paid each elected official a crazy amount, let's say $3M a year, they would be less likely to be swayed by lobbyists. It's why you shouldn't have an volunteer legislature: the only people who can afford to be legislators are people who are already wealthy—or people who are very very susceptible to corruption. You want "being a Congressperson" to pay enough that someone can stay above water on their mortgage back home and rent an apartment in DC at the same time.

Obviously humans are greedy and some people would accept anything just for the extra money, and some people would accept anything because they like the attention the lobbyist gives them, whatever. You'd cut down on that influence significantly.

Brother, you should spend some time in DC. All those people care about one thing, money.
Sorry but I have to strongly disagree and say that it would take legislation prohibiting monetary gifts/lobbyism to any elected officials to stop. And frankly that will never happen. If you pay Washington more they’ll keep taking what they can get along with it. I think if you banned that and the fact that they can just vote in their own pay raises it would keep honest politicians honest, if you can imagine such a thing lol. People just want to get into politics these days to get rich. Full stop. 🤷🏼‍♂️

 

[PooseMaGoose]

Brother, you should spend some time in DC. All those people care about one thing, money.
Sorry but I have to strongly disagree and say that it would take legislation prohibiting monetary gifts/lobbyism to any elected officials to stop. And frankly that will never happen. If you pay Washington more they’ll keep taking what they can get along with it. I think if you banned that and the fact that they can just vote in their own pay raises it would keep honest politicians honest, if you can imagine such a thing lol. People just want to get into politics these days to get rich. Full stop. 🤷🏼‍♂️

100%

There’s no such thing as “enough” when it comes to human nature, especially when you’re talking about money.

Exactly zero people who benefit from lobbyists would reject those lobbyists in the future if their salaries increased by a factor of ten…

“Thanks for the extra add on, bitches.”

The theory is that if you paid each elected official a crazy amount, let's say $3M a year, they would be less likely to be swayed by lobbyists..

You'd cut down on that influence significantly.

If there’s one thing wealthy people love… it’s wealth. Who the HELL would voluntarily turn down more money being thrown at them? Would you?

 

[Spoony90]

If there’s one thing wealthy people love… it’s wealth. Who the HELL would voluntarily turn down more money being thrown at them? Would you?

Yes. I’ve told trainees that I’d give them 20 percent to go back to the break room

 

[theflyingpig]

i received my runoff ballet in the mail today. i do not want to vote for president. i have a choice for vp. if I leave the president choice blank will that invalidate my ballot?

 

[ehmeye]

i received my runoff ballet in the mail today. i do not want to vote for president. i have a choice for vp. if I leave the president choice blank will that invalidate my ballot?

No, no vote will be recorded for president, but the vp vote will be counted

 

[Horno]

i received my runoff ballet in the mail today. i do not want to vote for president. i have a choice for vp. if I leave the president choice blank will that invalidate my ballot?

What if I send back an empty ballot. Do you think my point will be proven?

Edit: Honest question not sarcasm

 

[FightingIrish2012]

What if I send back an empty ballot. Do you think my point will be proven?

Edit: Honest question not sarcasm

Don’t do it, they will probably keep track of it and blackball you on NCEPT.

 

[Sassyquatch]

What if I send back an empty ballot. Do you think my point will be proven?

Edit: Honest question not sarcasm

Just write in JD lol